Menu

“SSA Marine’s actions defined the project as a coal terminal.”

Facebook post sharing a letter to the editor by Sandy Robson, published in the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 2016

Here is the text of Sandy Robson’s Letter to the Editor:

Regarding “Fossil Fuels’ Unpopularity Leaves a Mark” (Business & Tech., June 2), I find the consultant’s comment that SSA Marine’s Cherry Point project was “redefined in the public’s mind as simply a coal port” to be disingenuous. The project’s permit was denied by the Army Corps of Engineers because the agency found that the project would violate treaty-protected tribal fishing rights of the Lummi Nation, a sovereign Indian Nation, which had asked the corps in 2015 to deny the permit.

SSA Marine made agreements with two coal companies to ship coal through the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposed at Cherry Point, agreements that would use up almost all of the terminal’s throughput capacity. SSA Marine also made an agreement for one of those coal companies to become a 49% stakeholder in the terminal project. SSA Marine’s actions defined the project as a coal terminal. The public didn’t redefine it; it just saw the proposal for what it was.

Sandy Robson

Birch Bay, Wash.

Below is a link to the original June 1, 2016 article in the Wall Street Journal by Amy Harder, “Fossil Fuels’ Unpopularity Leaves a Mark.”